Worldwide Currency

[one love]

does not the mark of the beast represent some sort of one world currency? The bible says you can not buy or sell with out that mark. I am just curious. I recently studied a thought of one world order etc..

But did you study the Bible?


Why is the Mark of the Beast on the forehead a literal thing that must include a one world Government and a one world currency (both of which arent there), when God said FIRST that he would put his mark upon the forehead of HIS people?

Why is Gods mark spiritual and the Beasts Mark literal?

Using the Bible as the RULE, Would not the OBVIOUS conclusion be that the Beasts mark was the negative counterpart of Gods rather than an additional Idea of a One World Government and One World Currency be CREATED and INSERTED into the scripture??

And Playing the game: Theres more alternatives than a "one world Currency" that answers the question of why someone couldnt buy or sell.
Any reason you create can be inserted into scripture (since one world currency is, why not anything else).

First Pastorables stated that many things that preachers preached regarding the last days as they interpreted the bible are coming to pass and I also find that interesting.

Gerald I am simply stating that the bible says NO one can buy or sell unles they have the mark of the beast, period. Nothing more, nothing less. Now if NOBODY can buy or sell without that mark I would conclude that is regarding the entire world , hence some kind of one world order or currency. I do not claim to have all the answers to revelations, I only state OPINION because I need to study the subject more deeply to truly say "the bible says such and such"

I have studied it years ago for months at a time. I did break down each event of revelations the best I could with out any outside help or opinions and I felt through this study that I could say this was my thoughts regarding the text:

1. that I lean more toward mid- trib- rapture ( due to the fact that after mentioning the Jews "144,000" he said after this behold a multitude which NO man can number of ALL kindred's, nations and tongues. When asked who art these? the reply was ( thou knowest) these are those that came out of great tribulation.

2. that the world would all war against Israel so there would have to be some order of a sort

3. That the nations would come together with a one world currency


All this was done with NO influence just studying the bible. Can I say that I am right? NO.. It is my opinion of the verses. It has been over 8 years since I did such a study. If I could find all my notes and the breaking down of every chapter I would love to share it with ya just to see what you would think but again I find it interesting that after a study of the bible and eschatology that I am now also seeing things take place more and more leaning toward this. So what does that mean? dunno I would need to study it again.


You asked what is the difference between the seal of God in the foreheads and the mark? Well the you can not Buy without the mark noting that there has to be some kinda of allegiance with a mark, chip or something of that sort because the world can not buy or sell with out it.
The seal of God does not hint to any such thing, there is no physical evidence that the seal will effect them financially or in the worlds status, I find it obvious that the mark does indeed.

I am being honest that I do not claim to have the answers on all this just opinions until I can study it ALL over again , verse by verse. Until then it is my opinion of scripture ONLY.
I may do that soon though if the Lord allows me the time.

[scooter]

You must be watching an entirely different thread than the one I am.


I am responding to the claims that have been made: It was preached, it is asked for by obscured governments (not fulfilled at ALL PAstor Ables) and therefore it HAS TO BE SCRIPTURE.

IS this not the issue that is being discussed?

Response: I'm sorry I missed the "It HAS TO BE SCRIPTURE" part.

I thought that part came from you.

[scooter]

Gerald,

I never stated that it was or wasn't a biblical concept. I am making a factual comparison between things preached 50 years ago and things taking place before our very eyes.


pa

Response: I thought that's what I saw.

[one love]

Gerald,

I never stated that it was or wasn't a biblical concept. I am making a factual comparison between things preached 50 years ago and things taking place before our very eyes.


pa

Response: I thought that's what I saw.

Agreed that is what I thought was the point of the thread, that is what I am getting at as well.

[pastorables]

Gerald,

I never stated that it was or wasn't a biblical concept. I am making a factual comparison between things preached 50 years ago and things taking place before our very eyes.


pa

Response: I thought that's what I saw.

Yes. And...

That's just it. Those men of old, some without formal educations, believed that it did. They interpreted the Bible to the best of their knowledge and ability just as we do today. I find it very interesting that the things they preached and passed down are actually being discussed in world news today.

[Gerald Creasy]

I am confused.

If you take something "that was preached" and use it to prop up your belief on what scripture has to say WHEN IT IS NOT ACTUALLY IN SCRIPTURE,

WHAT THEN IS THE DIFFERENCE of whether it is a "Biblical concept" or not?

You are using "what was preached" to MOLD your scripture (The charge you lay at MY doorstep when I say you should judge the Biblical language with *GASP* how the language is used in scripture.)


If it is not in scripture, if it was preached and comes to pass means NOTHING.

[one love]

I am confused.

If you take something "that was preached" and use it to prop up your belief on what scripture has to say WHEN IT IS NOT ACTUALLY IN SCRIPTURE,

WHAT THEN IS THE DIFFERENCE of whether it is a "Biblical concept" or not?

You are using "what was preached" to MOLD your scripture (The charge you lay at MY doorstep when I say you should judge the Biblical language with *GASP* how the language is used in scripture.)


If it is not in scripture, if it was preached and comes to pass means NOTHING.

Gerald he said no such thing at all. He stated that men of God interpreted the bible a certain way which happens to differ form your opinion and what they preached FROM the bible is coming to pass. Point being it is interesting, nobody claimed to have this all figured out, well except you...

I find it kinda revealing that I studied the bible by myself and felt there would be a uniting of the nations and a one world currency as these men did. They preached way before they could have ever thought it would come to pass and we now are seeing this happen. Maybe it is just a coincidence, that is all that anyone has said.

[Gerald Creasy]

Gerald he said no such thing at all. He stated that men of God interpreted the bible a certain way which happens to differ form your opinion and what they preached FROM the bible is coming to pass.

HE DID say such a thing:

To the contrary, I would find such an event parallel enough to my understanding of the Bible that I would at least have to give the event serious consideration.

So how then does he develop his Biblical Understanding?

He touts "world currency" which lines up with his Biblical Understanding.
He touts preaching about it and then cites the newspaper which lines up with his Biblical understanding.
He can not show "world Currency" in scripture.

FROM WHENCE THEN COMES THE IDEA?

NOT from scripture.

It's because it was preached.
And he reads the newspaper.
And then PUTS IT INTO SCRIPTURE.

At the very least he is using "what was preached" to back up a preconceived notion of Bible; since there is no such thing mentioned there.

Point being it is interesting, nobody claimed to have this all figured out, well except you...

I knew all your love and "cant we get along" was nothig but a crock of crud.

You better go back and read where I have repeatedly said I do not understand all but have serious problems with the logical contradictions of the POP viewpoint.

Do it quick before I call you a liar.

I find it kinda revealing that I studied the bible by myself and felt there would be a uniting of the nations and a one world currency as these men did. They preached way before they could have ever thought it would come to pass and we now are seeing this happen. Maybe it is just a coincidence, that is all that anyone has said.

You never ever heard it preached at all did you?

I remember being just out of my teens and I knew the entire FUTURIST dispensational ideology AND HAD NEVER STUDIED the Bible or READ A BOOK.....it was what was absorbed from preaching and "what people said"